So, it took exactly five days for the chick to cry and the black candidate and his surrogates to play the race card.
I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Rodham-Clinton and her HINO (husband in name only). After all, there's nothing wrong with welling up -- President Bush did it just the other day when visiting the Holocaust memorial in Israel. The difference, of course -- and this says it all -- is that, while the President wept over the horrific murder of six million souls by the national socialists, the socialist here, HRC, was weeping about how hard HER life is, having to actually answer questions about her "record."
In fact, not only do I not have a great deal of sympathy for America's "first black president" and his WINO, in being attacked as "racists." After all, this is the card these corrupt socialists play against those who disagree with them all the time.
Interestingly, when the Democrats say overtly racist things: something they do all the time, because Democrats are inherently bigoted, there is never a fuss -- their coideologists in the leftist media either covering it up, excusing it away or reporting it once and then moving on.
Of course, it was Ms. Rodham-Clinton who argued that all Indians work in gas stations when she claimed that Mahatma Ghandi owned a small gas station and it was Democrat Party elder statesman, Joe Biden who was stunned to meet a black man who was "clean." It's Democrats who are asking "is Barack black enough?" because he doesn't speak the way black people are supposed to speak and because he actually wears a belt that keeps his pants up rather than how what Democrats call "authentic blacks" are supposed to dress.
To the Democrats blacks not only all look alike and dress alike, but they all THINK alike, so that Condelezza Rice and Colin Powell, Rod Page and Bill Cosby are "not really black" because they actually speak proper English (not ebonics) and talk about such "white" things as personal responsibility.
So it's good to see "the first black president" (what makes him "black?" The fact that he cheats on his wife? The fact that he blames others for his failures?) and his WINO being attacked as "racists" when, in this case, they didn't say or do anything wrong. We Republicans are used to the race card being played against us as a way to stifle honest debate that the leftists know they cannot win.
What Ms. Rodham-Clinton said was exactly right. As inspirational and important was the work of Martin Luther King, Jr., without an ally in government who could translate the message into legislation, the movement (mostly against Democrats who opposed civil rights) would have remained just that: an inspirational movement.
Hopefully some Democrats will take a lesson from these attacks because what should be clear, is that it doesn't matter how beloved you are by the Democrats. It doesn't matter how many years you've worked in service of the leftist agenda, you can even be "the first black president," but if it suits them, they'll come after you.
Whenever you see the Democrats play the race card against Republicans, remember, they'll play it against you, too, if they can make an extra buck.
669 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 669 of 669Table 12 shows us that 59% of loans to African Americans were subprime, 40% of loans to hispanics were subprime, and 19% of loans to whites were subprime.
I don't see anywhere where it tells you what percentage of all subprime loans were made to african americans, what percentage to hispanics and what percentage to whites.
"Please show me statistics about the defaults right now that show that minorities are hardest hit."
Done.
Now you want more specific data? Mine it yourself.
The affirmative action witch-hunt moves from employment to the credit markets...
The information disclosed under HMDA constitutes a rich data set, but, of course, all data sets have their limitations. The HMDA data tell a great deal about lending patterns, but they do not tell the entire story. Nonetheless, by drawing attention to lending patterns, the data prompt discussion, investigation, analysis, and research that may deepen our understanding of why these patterns occur and allow us to increase fairness and efficiency in the home loan market. For example, in 1991, congressional amendments to HMDA resulted in the disclosure of data that, for the first time, revealed black and Hispanic applicants for mortgage loans were far more likely than non-Hispanic white applicants to have their applications denied. The publication of those data precipitated an important public discussion about the underlying causes--and about whether unlawful discrimination was one of the causes. That discussion helped bring about new initiatives for compliance and community development. Many lenders improved their lending policies and developed strong compliance and oversight programs. Lenders also expanded their outreach to underserved communities, often by strengthening ties with community-based organizations. The data also prompted supervisory and enforcement agencies to improve their fair lending oversight programs. In short, though denial disparities have persisted, HMDA’s disclosure of those disparities has helped to increase the fairness and efficiency of the home loan market.
"Please show me statistics about the defaults right now that show that minorities are hardest hit."
Done.
No, you're not done. You've showed me that minorities are more likely to get subprime loans and are more likely to default on them. However, are they the hardest hit? Not necessarily. This depends on how many minorities get loans, and how many whites get loans.
Table 12 shows us that 59% of loans to African Americans were subprime, 40% of loans to hispanics were subprime, and 19% of loans to whites were subprime.
Whites are 80 % of the population, blacks are 12.8 %, hispanics are 14.4% of the population. Let's assume that they all get loans at the same proportions of their populations, meaning that 80% of total annual loans are taken out by whites, 12.8% by blacks, and 14.4% by hispanics.
We also know that 52% of loans to African Americans were subprime, 40% of loans to hispanics were subprime, and 19% of loans to whites were subprime.
So, let's see, let's assume you have 100 loans, and the population proportions apply (80 are to whites, 12.8 are to blacks, etc):
80 *.19 = 15.2 loans to whites that are subprime
12.8 * .52 = 6.65 loans to blacks that are subprime
14.4 * .40 = 5.76 loans to hispanics that are subprime
So, minorities have 6.65+5.76= 12.41 supprime loans, and whites have 15.2 subprime loans. So, whites actually have more subprime loans in total than minorities (well, blacks and hispanics) do.
Fascinating, no? Now let's mix in the foreclosure numbers.
Blacks 10% * 6.65 = .665 subprime loans that will foreclose
Hispanics 8% * 5.76 = .408 subprime loans that will foreclose
Whites 4% * 15.2 = .608 subprime loans that will foreclose
So, there will be, numerically, slightly fewer white people foreclosing on their subprime homes than black people. Proportionally to their respective populations, of course blacks and hispanics are most affected, but in terms of total mortgages, total subprime loans and total foreclosures, it's not like blacks have 80% of the subprime loans (as someone was alleging) or 80% of the foreclosures.
Touche. That analysis and a quarter will get you 25 cents worth of goods at your local 7-11.
I imagine all that went right over your head.
And to think, i'm a girl, "math" is supposed to be "tough."
Minorities will only constitute 64% of foreclosures...
oh... but then we forget that women might be another 16% of the white 32% bringing the total foreclosure rate of minorities back up to 80%...LOL!
somuch4dorasanalysis said...
Minorities will only constitute 64% of foreclosures...
oh... but then we forget that women might be another 16% of the white 32% bringing the total foreclosure rate of minorities back up to 80%...LOL!
I hate to break it to you, but you forgot that there are also Asian people in this country, as well as other racial minorities that are not black, hispanic or white. So, calculating your "total foreclosures" is flawed.
but then we forget that women might be another 16% of the white 32%
And where did you get this statistic, that half of all mortgages taken out by whites are taken out by women alone? Most mortgages are taken out by 2 people who are married.
You're really a statistics whiz, you are!
Oh, AND, you're moving the goalposts, because who ever originally made the 80% argument wrote: "The subprime mortagage crises. 80% of loans were "affirmative action" loans. Now we're entering into an "affirmative action" recession."
He didn't say 80% of foreclosures, he said 80% of the loans, and we all now know that's not true.
What's evident to anyone who is familiar with the constitution is that the line item veto is unconstitutional.
Next, Dora will offer the observation that the sky is blue, and think herself profound.
Yes, the line item veto is unconstitutional, currently.
Republicans want to amend the Constitution to give the President line item veto power.
Personally, if I were President, I'd refuse to sign any budget, even budgets I like, and shut down the fucking government altogether until there was a line item veto amended to the Constitution.
But, I'm a "get things done" kind of guy. That attitude is incongruent with the politician mindset.
I like how in Beamish's world, everything good that happens under Bush is thanks to Bush's wise leadership, and everything bad that happens isn't really his fault, it's the fault of Congress, Clinton, the intelligence community, Brownie, etc.
Horseshit. I'm a member of a group considered collectively with the rest of Bush's disapproval rating percentages as a whole that says "Why isn't Tehran a radioactive crater?"
If the economy is in the shitter when Bush leaves office, it's because the Democrat controlled Congress, the purse strings of ALL budget decisions and legislation, let it get that way.
Fine job they're doing. Since their first fiscal budget began [October 2007], they've already got people bailing out of the stock market.
Smart people know the double-digit percentage tax increases coming because Democrats have killed the opportunity to make Bush's tax cuts permanent are going to hurt every economic sector in America.
Even Simes, eyes watering from snorting Rice-O-Roni flavor packets, can see "recession" in the future.
Freakin' Demento Roosevelt and L. Brainless Johnson's ticking timebomb - Social Security insolvency for "Baby Boomer" retirees - goes off in 2010, sooner if Dems push further tax increases.
We may well suffer through 4 years of a Democrat Presidency starting in 2009.
But we won't suffer a Democrat Presidency ever again after that.
Look at the bright side.
Personally, if I were President, I'd refuse to sign any budget, even budgets I like, and shut down the fucking government altogether until there was a line item veto amended to the Constitution.
And you'd probably get impeached, because you will have violated your oath of office.
Article 1, Section 2
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If the economy is in the shitter when Bush leaves office, it's because the Democrat controlled Congress, the purse strings of ALL budget decisions and legislation, let it get that way.
Fine job they're doing. Since their first fiscal budget began [October 2007], they've already got people bailing out of the stock market.
Could you elaborate on this, i.e. what have the Democrats done, specifically, that is harming the economy, as you allege?
Plus, Bush signed it, so what are you bitching about?!
Personally, if I were President, I'd refuse to sign any budget, even budgets I like, and shut down the fucking government altogether until there was a line item veto amended to the Constitution.
And you'd probably get impeached, because you will have violated your oath of office.
Article 1, Section 2
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Nothing here about signing a budget bill (or any other kind of bill) I don't feel like signing.
Stick to frying potato cakes, Arby's Girl.
Nothing here about signing a budget bill (or any other kind of bill) I don't feel like signing.
Um, good luck with your interesting theory of constitutional interpretation.
Stick to frying potato cakes, Arby's Girl.
It's a great job, Beamish. It beats whatever it is that you do for a living that allows you to spend most of your time trolling blogs. :)
You can call me stupid all you want, Bimbo, i have plenty of evidence to the contrary. Your life is the opposite: you call yourself smart on the internet, but in real life, the evidence is mounting of your stupidity. I'd be sad and angry if I were you, too, so don't feel bad.
How old are you, anyway, bimbo?
You're 37. And what have you got to show for it? LOL
Has your alleged live-in girlfriend left you yet?
If the economy is in the shitter when Bush leaves office, it's because the Democrat controlled Congress, the purse strings of ALL budget decisions and legislation, let it get that way.
Fine job they're doing. Since their first fiscal budget began [October 2007], they've already got people bailing out of the stock market.
Could you elaborate on this, i.e. what have the Democrats done, specifically, that is harming the economy, as you allege?
Remember in 2000 when Democrats were screaming about needing to "save Social Security?" When Al Gore was going to put all those I.O.U.'s [that used to be actual money / T-bills in the Social Security Trust before Democrats raided the fuck out of it in the 1960s] in a "lockbox?" So, you know, baby boomers aren't shafted so hard by Roosevelt's Ponzi scheme in the 2010's?
Remember when after Bush took office and tried to propose privatization solutions for this crisis that is about to freaking explode in the faces of people stupid enough to believe a government that can't even get friggin' local mail across town on the same day is going to set them up with the sweet life at retirement, and Democrats said "there's nothing wrong with Social Security. Don't do nothing! There is no solvency crisis!"
(Aren't you glad Bush was able to solve Gore's great lockbox conundrum without doing a thing? No?)
Well, that's just one bomb on the horizon.
I've been hearing about the coming trainwrecks of SS and Medicare insolvency since I was in high school. That was 20 years ago. The only thing that has changed is that it's not going to screw boomers in 2013. Now it's going to start hurting in 2010, and possibly sooner.
Throw on top of that all the illegal immigrants taking jobs that pay not one dime into the SS fund, and all the "Is Jesus welcome in America?" open borders hooey from the Hillary campaign for allowing illegal immigrants access to free health care and SS benefits, and you see why a deadline date for being too late to do anything for retiring baby boomers is getting closer than time actually moves.
Bush's hard fought tax cut bills are going to expire in consecutive cycles - 2009, 2010, 2011... unless made permanent.
So now you've got massive tax increases hitting Americans at the same time the government can no longer hide the fact that Johnson spent your parent's Social Security retirement money "fighting poverty."
Two bombs on the horizon.
Oh, they've got a 401k tied up in the stock market to retire on?
Tax increases are already scaring away investment. Just wait until there are tax increases to pay for FD Roosevelt's Ponzi scheme.
Three bombs on the horizon...
And when the bank / sub-prime lender buyout comes, someone's going to be asked to pay more taxes.
Four bombs on the horizon...
But, when you're sitting in your rented cubicle "apartment" eating generic dog food (because you can't afford the brand name stuff), remember, Democrat obstruction Bush's budget measures and Social Security reforms were worth all this.
Try not to barf up the Chinese wheat gluten in your dog biscuits. People might think you have SARS.
Plus, Bush signed it, so what are you bitching about?!
That he signed it. Bush's veto pen had too much ink in it by the end of 2002.
Dora, I'm not a hack party loyalist beholden to lick the asshole of whoever's running against the Democrats.
I'm just not mentally retarded enough to vote for a Democrat.
I may sit home this November.
Hey Boobish...lots of luck with that dem congress is causing the recession thing...as everyone remembers Hoover and the Repubs as the cause of the Great D -- regardless of what GOP apologists blither about til the end of time -- people will almost universally and correctly blame Bush for this one...and it's looking more and more like a real doozy...might be another Big D like the ones that gave us the great period of Liberalism that took America to its greatest heights. I mean, really, who gives a fuck how a pack of reicho morons see it...you won't count anymore than the Hoover groupies did.
Remember when after Bush took office and tried to propose privatization solutions for this crisis that is about to freaking explode in the faces of people stupid enough to believe a government that can't even get friggin' local mail across town on the same day is going to set them up with the sweet life at retirement
What part of "Bush had a Republican-controlled congress for 4 years" don't you understand? Why didn't he do it, when he had the chance?
Yeah, it's just like them going on about the racial thing Who cares, maroons? You could sell yourself that horseshit til the end of time and everyone who counts -- the minorities themselves -- are all voting Democrat. It's sterile, it's impotent, it's the product of dead minds rattling in the void. And the same stale, threadbare stuff you endlessly repeat. Don't you ever get repulsed by yourselves? Seriously?
Throw on top of that all the illegal immigrants taking jobs that pay not one dime into the SS fund,
And who would be doing those jobs, if not for them? Show me hoards of US Citizens who are out of jobs because of illegal immigrants.
and all the "Is Jesus welcome in America?" open borders hooey from the Hillary campaign for allowing illegal immigrants access to free health care and SS benefits, and you see why a deadline date for being too late to do anything for retiring baby boomers is getting closer than time actually moves.
Beamish, you really are an idiot. Hello?! The question was, what have the democrats done to screw the economy, not what is clinton going to do?
Bush's hard fought tax cut bills are going to expire in consecutive cycles - 2009, 2010, 2011... unless made permanent.
So now you've got massive tax increases hitting Americans
Massive? You have no idea what you're talking about. "Hitting Americans"? Most Americans won't be hit with anything.
Oh, they've got a 401k tied up in the stock market to retire on?
Tax increases are already scaring away investment. Just wait until there are tax increases to pay for FD Roosevelt's Ponzi scheme.
Um, what? Plus, i like how beamish at the same time is critical of having your retirement savings in the stock market, and wants to privatize social security. How does your head not explode?
But, when you're sitting in your rented cubicle "apartment" eating generic dog food (because you can't afford the brand name stuff), remember, Democrat obstruction Bush's budget measures and Social Security reforms were worth all this.
Try not to barf up the Chinese wheat gluten in your dog biscuits. People might think you have SARS.
Now you just sound crazy.
Well, it's also a lot more than congress ...he's got all the Cabinet departments, all the regulatory agencies and bureaucracy and increasingly the courts...and the so called democrats are now about where the socially moderate Rockefeller GOPs used to be. In addition, they are utterly gutless and useless. They constitute less than a zero impediment to these Bush fools...in fact, they are more often enablers. That's why it's so funny when the naive and astonishingly ignorant Sayet goes on about radical liberals dominating the Dem party...hahahaha...I'm a moderate liberal and would like to throw about 80 percent of these right wing democrat fools out of the country.
It's GW and the fat, corporate agribusinesses who are the biggest forces behind drawing more and more cheap alien labor into the country. This cheap labor puts ten times more into the economy than is taken out by any social services some of them may get. The real emotion behind their opposition here is the same old thing...racism...they just hate having them wetbacks coming into der homeland. I am also opposed to illegal immigration and much legal immigration on population grounds, but the arguments these idiotological hacks make are almost always ridiculous and wildly overblown.
So, calculating your "total foreclosures" is flawed.
LOL! Then why'd YOU do it?
Most mortgages are taken out by 2 people who are married.
Care to back that up with evidence?
blamethemirror said...
So, calculating your "total foreclosures" is flawed.
LOL! Then why'd YOU do it?
um, I didn't calculate total foreclosures to percentages like you did. I didn't ignore the Asians and other races, like you did. I wrote:
Blacks 10% * 6.65 = .665 subprime loans that will foreclose
Hispanics 8% * 5.76 = .408 subprime loans that will foreclose
Whites 4% * 15.2 = .608 subprime loans that will foreclose
but in terms of total mortgages, total subprime loans and total foreclosures, it's not like blacks have 80% of the subprime loans (as someone was alleging) or 80% of the foreclosures.
It's clear from the data that even if you add in the Asians, blacks won't be 80% of foreclosures.
18% of homebuyers are single women.
http://www.realtor.org/libweb.nsf/pages/fg212
Men are 10%.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3697/is_200502/ai_n11826831
Thusly, 72% are married couples or other joint projects.
I don't know if corporations are included in these numbrs.
He didn't say 80% of foreclosures, he said 80% of the loans, and we all now know that's not true. Do we?
Across the nation, black and Hispanic borrowers helped fuel a multiyear housing boom, accounting for 49% of the increase in homeowners from 1995 to 2005, says Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies. But Hispanics and African-Americans were far more likely to leverage the American dream with subprime loans — higher-cost products for buyers with impaired credit — that are now going bad at an alarming rate.
About 46% of Hispanics and 55% of blacks who took out purchase mortgages in 2005 got higher-cost loans, compared with about 17% of whites and Asians, according to Federal Reserve data. The South Side of Chicago, with a large concentration of minority borrowers, has a high concentration of subprime loans and the state's highest foreclosure rate. In Boston, where defaults are rising — especially in minority areas — 73% of high-income black buyers (those making $92,000 to $152,000) and 70% of high-income Hispanics had subprime loans in 2005, compared with 17% of whites.
If 50% of total housing sales went to minorities, and subprimes only constitute 20% of total mortgage market... 80% of subprimes going to minorities sounds pretty reasonable
Show me hoards of US Citizens who are out of jobs because of illegal immigrants.
Throw out the immigrants and I'll show you 12 million jobs available for US citizens and a much higher "minimum" wage.
If 50% of total housing sales went to minorities, and subprimes only constitute 20% of total mortgage market... 80% of subprimes going to minorities sounds pretty reasonable
I don't see how that adds up.
So, 50% of new loans went to minorities, and subprimes are 20% of the new mortgages, and 50% of black and hispanic people get subprime mortgages, then what?
Dora,
I have been patient with you, despite your lack of reading comprehension skills, your dismal grasp of history, your even worse economic analysis, your quite frankly idiotic attempts at portraying yourself as anything but an Arby's employee (sorry you had to work on MLK Day, wage slave), and your inability to accept gracefully a fact readily demonstrated with every post you make - that you're out of your league when not discussing obscure reality TV shows. I'm not going to waste my time teaching you basic logic. The flippant questions you ask me, quite frankly, waste electricity. If you were even a tenth as "trained in logic" and "versed in economics" as you like to claim to be, you'd be embarrassed to be associated with the words you type. You're beyond the point of becoming a definition of ridiculous... ricockulous even.
"What have the Democrats done to screw the economy?"
Well, they had to be appeased for 6 years, as they were only a slim minority in Congress. This means "water down reform until it isn't reform." Compromise compromise compromise. Democrats obstructed any and all attempts to reform Social Security, even as Bush passed Medicare prescription drug "benefits" and such as if he were a friggin Democrat.
Conservatives are many things. "Compassionate" is not one of them. Bush would have been better off calling himself "slightly rightward of Al Gore."
That Simes sees the Democrat Party as "right-wing dominated," while deserving another box of Rice-O-Roni, isn't all that helpful. It's all partisan hackery.
So now, the first Democrat-dominated Congress since 1994 has their budget schedule kick off in October 2007. Congress makes the budgets. The President signs them.
The current budget of the US Government is a Democrat budget, signed by Bush.
Should he have signed it? Apparently not.
Because now, 3 months after that budget went into effect, we're at doom and gloom.
Coincidence?
I think not.
So when you're eating your Alpo in 2009, try to chin up and remember, you voted for it.
deportillegals said...
Show me hoards of US Citizens who are out of jobs because of illegal immigrants.
Throw out the immigrants and I'll show you 12 million jobs available for US citizens and a much higher "minimum" wage.
um, where are these 12 million Americans? What are they doing right now, instead of working in these jobs?
Because now, 3 months after that budget went into effect, we're at doom and gloom.
Coincidence?
I think not.
where is your evidence that it's anything but a coincidence? You haven't explained anything. Long on insults, short on actual facts and explanations.
So when you're eating your Alpo in 2009, try to chin up and remember, you voted for it.
Between the two of us, it's you who is more likely to be eating Alpo in the near future.
I think Bimbo here is just driven mad by the fact that an immigrant chick is better at life than he is, even though he's a native-born American white man, what more advantaged in life could you ask for?!
You were born with the most opportunities any person in the world could have been born with, and you wasted it all, and that must be a sad thing for you to think about.
"What have the Democrats done to screw the economy?"
Well, they had to be appeased for 6 years, as they were only a slim minority in Congress. This means "water down reform until it isn't reform." Compromise compromise compromise. Democrats obstructed any and all attempts to reform Social Security, even as Bush passed Medicare prescription drug "benefits" and such as if he were a friggin Democrat.
Ah, so when Republicans have majorities in both chambers, and the presidency, everything is still the Dems' fault?
How does your head not explode?
Also, you failed to address this: beamish at the same time is critical of having your retirement savings in the stock market, and wants to privatize social security. How does your head not explode?
The report by the United for a Fair Economy (UFE) advocacy group said subprime mortgages, home loans issued to Americans with scant finances, were "ruthlessly hawked" and that a "solid majority of subprime loan recipients were people of color."
United for a Fair Economy? Are you fucking kidding me? They're definitely biased, but for the Edwards-style anti-corporate left (of which I am not a part).
um, where are these 12 million Americans? What are they doing right now, instead of working in these jobs?
7.7 million are unemployed, sitting at home just waiting for a call. The other five million will magically appear when wages go up to fill the remaining 4.3 million jobs.
United for a Fair Economy? Are you fucking kidding me? They're definitely biased...
The Left is...*gasp* biased? LOL!!!
womenandteensintotheworkforce said...
um, where are these 12 million Americans? What are they doing right now, instead of working in these jobs?
7.7 million are unemployed, sitting at home just waiting for a call. The other five million will magically appear when wages go up to fill the remaining 4.3 million jobs.
Interesting. So, first of all, you think that these 7.7 million people are in the right locations for those illegal immigrant jobs, so that if the illegal immigrants leave, those 7.7 million can just take their place with no extra costs? Or do you think that the 7.7 million is going to move, with their families, to their new minimum-wage-paying job at the chicken factory?
And secondly, you seem to be completely unfamiliar with the concept of underemployment. You think the 7.7 million are all willing to take just any job? Some of them have specific skills, college degrees, etc. You think they all want to work pikcing strawberries and delivering Chinese food?
Ever thought about using labor efficiently, such that people with excess skillsets are not working jobs that don't use those skills? Skills like speaking, reading and writing English, for example.
As for the rest, to make up that 4 million shortfall, you're going to make teenagers and stay-at-home moms work? Or maybe the retired?
Okay, how many of you want your kids delivering food to strangers' homes, sorting laundry, mowing lawns, being maids, picking strawberries?
Americans don't want these jobs, and they're not going to take them.
Dora,
I answered your questions here:
I'm not going to waste my time teaching you basic logic. The flippant questions you ask me, quite frankly, waste electricity. If you were even a tenth as "trained in logic" and "versed in economics" as you like to claim to be, you'd be embarrassed to be associated with the words you type. You're beyond the point of becoming a definition of ridiculous... ricockulous even.
Use your finger.
Move your lips if you have to, twit.
I'll take Beamish's complete descent into frustrated insults as a victory.
Or maybe his head did indeed explode and he's no longer capable of any other kind of communication?
Nya nya, you're a loser. hahahah
The key line in Dora's response is "do you think they all want to work picking strawberrys?"
Dora lives in a world where everyone does what they want when they want and if they have to take a job that's "beneath them" (because, for whatever reason -- usually an inflated sense of themselves born of the self-esteem movement) they can't get work in jobs that are worthy of them.
The Modern Liberal thinks life is, in the words of the Eagles: "Everything, all the time" or, like Hillary Clinton's campaign ad, where everything is delivered under the tree for the children to open on Christmas.
Hearing this failed buffoon tell us what Liberals think is the mainest fun on this looney site...here he goes again...
The Modern Liberal thinks life is, in the words of the Eagles: "Everything, all the time" or, like Hillary Clinton's campaign ad, where everything is delivered under the tree for the children to open on Christmas.
Haha...funny...the poor guy couldn't understand even the most elementary liberal, but he keeps playing that tape in his rusty, robot head for the amusement of everyone. God, what it must be like to be around this dope.
Oh, now Evan thinks that underemployment is just something liberals made up.
Would you move to central valley and go strawberry-picking for money? Cuz you don't have a job right now, so, um, why aren't you doing that?
See, Evan seems to be confused about two important aspects of economics:
(1) You want to use the resources you have most efficiently, including human capital. Suppose you have 2 guys, one guy doesn't speak English, never went to high school, can't read or write. Another guy is a college graduate who speaks English. Would should be picking strawberries and who should be working an office job, to have the most efficiency?
(2) Some unemployment is good. Most economists agree that the optimal unemployment rate is between 3 and 5%. Otherwise, if unemployment is 0%, there is no room for growh. Employers who want to hire employees either can find no one to hire, or have to pay more for someone who is less qualified. 0% unemployment takes a lot of the grease that makes the economy work out of the economy. So it would actually be very bad for the economy if we kicked out all the illegal immigrants and made people who are overqualified for various jobs all go do the jobs illegals do now. Unemployment would go down to 0, the costs of hiring a new worker would go up, because the supply of workers will have dramatically increased, and employers will be competing more for employees. This is good to some degree, but bad if you have to vastly overpay for very unqualified workers because all the qualified workers are working in the chicken processing plant halfway across the country, thanks someone's brilliant plan.
the supply of workers will have dramatically increased
dramatically decreased. sorry.
Would you move to central valley and go strawberry-picking for money? Cuz you don't have a job right now, so, um, why aren't you doing that?
Because it doesn't pay enough... now. But get rid of the illegals working for sub-minimum tax-free wages and the price of strawberries will go up in the supermarket. And so will wages.
Dora seems to think that the over 50% of blacks and hispanics currently dropping out of urban high schools couldn't use a few buck picking strawberries. Evidently selling crack in the hood is a much higher skilled job.
Maybe we should have the illegals sell the crack...
Of course, welfare/public assistance is where these idiots are headed.
Why work when you can lay in the liberal safety net on Uncle Sam's plantation?
economixis2complicated4liberals said...
Would you move to central valley and go strawberry-picking for money? Cuz you don't have a job right now, so, um, why aren't you doing that?
Because it doesn't pay enough... now. But get rid of the illegals working for sub-minimum tax-free wages and the price of strawberries will go up in the supermarket. And so will wages.
How far do you think those wages will go? $7/hour? $10/hour? $12/hour? You think someone like Evan would be tempted by those numbers?
Plus, do you want to pay $10/pint for strawberries? That high price makes your standard of living go down, because where you paid $4 before, you pay $10 now, and that $6 -- gone! You could have spent it on something else, but now it's gone.
demonomix said...
Dora seems to think that the over 50% of blacks and hispanics currently dropping out of urban high schools couldn't use a few buck picking strawberries. Evidently selling crack in the hood is a much higher skilled job.
demonomix seems to think that 50% of black people sell crack in the hood.
But wait, it's the Dems who are racist! haha
The Modern Liberal thinks life is, in the words of the Eagles: "Everything, all the time" or, like Hillary Clinton's campaign ad, where everything is delivered under the tree for the children to open on Christmas.
Bingo!
demonomix seems to think that 50% of black people sell crack in the hood.
Where did I say that? The racist must b.u.
btw - For the record, 82% of crack offenders are black. Is that racist? Then go arrest the reporters at Time Magazine.
Plus, do you want to pay $10/pint for strawberries?
People will pay $4 for a cup of coffee...
You think someone like Evan would be tempted by those numbers?
We're all whores. It's just a matter of price. Make it $100/hr and me and Evan will give it a go.
You think someone like Evan would be tempted by those numbers?
We're all whores. It's just a matter of price. Make it $100/hr and me and Evan will give it a go.
It's not about how high you want to make it, it's about how high the market will take it. Do you think it would be a good thing for our economy if strawberry pickers were paid $100/hour?
demonomix seems to think that 50% of black people sell crack in the hood.
Where did I say that? The racist must b.u.
You said:
Dora seems to think that the over 50% of blacks and hispanics currently dropping out of urban high schools couldn't use a few buck picking strawberries. Evidently selling crack in the hood is a much higher skilled job.
And then you topped everything off with: btw - For the record, 82% of crack offenders are black.
And your point is?
Is that racist? Then go arrest the reporters at Time Magazine.
It's not racist to cite statistics, but even if it were, since when do we arrest people for racism?
You're a real twit.
If the Fed doesn'r make a move on inflation, strawberries will be costing $100/pt. before you know it. Instead, they're lowering rates so that holders of subprimes won't be thrown out on their cans. The Fed is trying to serve two masters... and the American people are going to lose because of it.
You're a real twit.
I'm not the one pretending that everyone else in the world is a racist. The only difference between us is that you are a pandering/patronizing racist and I'm intellectually honest enough to call a spade a spade.
demonomix said...
You're a real twit.
I'm not the one pretending that everyone else in the world is a racist. The only difference between us is that you are a pandering/patronizing racist and I'm intellectually honest enough to call a spade a spade.
I'm the racist, you're the intellectually honest one?
Oh my stars.
Dora,
I've not descended to "frustrated insults" with you. I tell you that you're a blithering idiot because your parents love you too much to let you think otherwise.
That leftists are incapable of following linear logic (causes lead to effects, etc.), compounded by the typical leftist's dismal reading comprehension skills, is not my problem.
It doesn't "cause my head to explode" to believe putting money in the stock market for retirement (like a 401k, or similar program to replace Ponzi scheme Social Security) will cause a stock market rise. Nor does it "cause my head to explode" to believe people pulling money out of their 401k's / selling off their stock assets when tax rates get ricockulous will cause a stock market crash.
None of these are real concerns if tax cuts are maintained and something actual is done about Social Security and Nedicare insolvency.
Instead, you're going to get behind this election year's $150 Billion "economic stimulus" package / free money giveaway from the Democrats in Congress without any sense of what it will do to budget deficits or the national debt.
Why?
Because, as I've said, you're an idiot.
Nedicare = Medicare... typo
Beamish, you're so good at insults. You're really trying to say the meanest things you can imagine -- maybe you heard all these mean things from your parent(s)?
If we are so stupid, why are you still talking to us?
Dora,
If we are so stupid, why are you still talking to us?
Because my posting once about how stupid leftists are generates at least six posts from leftists that prove leftists are stupid.
You did ask.
Because my posting once about how stupid leftists are generates at least six posts from leftists that prove leftists are stupid.
And the point of provoking that is...?
6:1 ROI
Dora,
Read my profile. Mind control is one of my interests / hobbies.
Don't read my profile.
...must read...
Read my profile. Mind control is one of my interests / hobbies.
That's interesting... why would someone want to control other people's minds? I don't have that desire.
Maybe someone who feels impotent and weak would want that?
That's interesting... why would someone want to control other people's minds? I don't have that desire.
I admit I didn't have much interest in the topic until Dennis Kucinich proposed a ban on the military's orbital mind control laser network in response to the September 11th attacks.
I mean, look what they're doing to that poor guy.
Maybe someone who feels impotent and weak would want that?
Well, I have been waiting on a sandwich from you for a while. You'd think a sandwich would be easier for an Arby's girl to produce than "I'm a law student believe me believe me" all the time.
But what do I know about mind control?
Post a Comment